Helping make the UK the best place to be a dog and own a dog

Category Archives: Kennel Club

Doctors Tom Lewis (KC) and Cathryn Mellersh (AHT) recently published an Open Access paper where they analysed trends in DNA testing for 8 autosomally recessive conditions in 8 breeds. A headline in the Vet Times said “Study reveals ‘fantastic work’ of DNA testing”. The sub-headline stated that “A study has revealed responsible breeders are reducing the number of pedigree dogs at risk of often painful and debilitating inherited diseases by around 90%”.

This paper is exactly the sort of great work we have come to expect from the KC’s Health Team and their partners at the Animal Health Trust. I believe it could be one of the most influential papers that might be published this year because of its potential to influence breed health policy and strategy, as well as the behaviour of breeders and buyers.

I don’t want to dwell on the detail of the research; you can read that for yourself, here: https://goo.gl/PiQmMF – I want to discuss how and why this paper might be important. The study covers the results of 8 DNA tests in 8 breeds for the period 2000 to 2017. 2 of the DNA tests applied to 2 breeds, resulting in 10 test+breed combinations. The key metric used to measure progress was the Mutation Frequency which is more useful than simply counting the number or calculating the proportions of Clear, Carrier and Affected dogs. It is calculated as [(2 x No. of Affected) + No. of Carriers]/(2 x No. of dogs with a known result).

Measures of progress

Previously, many reports on the progress of DNA testing have simply shown the proportion of Clear, Carrier and Affected dogs tested each year and that’s what we used to report in our Dachshund Annual Health Report. However, as tests become more established, the KC is able to deduce the status of untested dogs and assign their hereditary status. For many tests we are now able to identify Hereditary Clear, Hereditary Carrier and Hereditary Affected dogs based on test results from their parents. That still leaves a proportion of dogs in the KC database without known or deduced status and the researchers acknowledged this in their analysis but were able to calculate a “worst case” view of mutation frequency in each breed. Those of us reporting on DNA testing in our breed should be asking the KC Health Team for Hereditary results so we can give a more accurate picture of the impact being made. The difference can be quite significant, for example 50% of the test results for PRA-rcd4 in Gordon Setters were “Clear” in 2017 but, when hereditary status is taken into account, 95% of the breed was “Clear”. When you’re telling the story of what’s been achieved, that’s a big difference.

Another aspect of the paper is the data on trends in uptake and usage of DNA tests. For most breeds, unsurprisingly, the peak uptake of DNA tests was around the time it became commercially available and subsequently tailing off. The one exception to this was Exercise Induced Collapse in Labradors where use of the test has grown steadily since its launch. The peak around launch may reflect the fact that breed club communities are often actively involved in developing a test and are therefore keen to make use of it as soon as it becomes available. The challenge for all of us in breed clubs is how to educate and influence those outside our community to make use of these tests.

The paper also shows that there is an inverse relationship between the size of a breed and the take-up rate of tests. The slowest rate of increase occurred in the 2 numerically largest breeds, Labradors and Cockers. In smaller breeds, it’s more likely that breed clubs have influence over a higher proportion of breeders. The Labrador/Cocker effect may also be related to the split of working, show and pet breeders, making it more difficult to reach a more diverse group of owners. It may also be the case that, in breeds where multiple DNA tests exist, like Labradors (5 tests according to the KC) and Cockers (4 tests), it is more difficult to persuade breeders to make use of what might be seen as “yet another test”.

Another consideration related to uptake of a test is breeders’ perception of the need to use it. The severity of the condition, its age of onset and how widespread affected dogs are in the population are all factors that individual breeders will consider when prioritising whether or not to use a test. In some cases, breeders simply don’t want to know despite the seriousness of a condition and prefer to bury their heads in the sand. All of this gets me back on my change management hobby-horse; it’s important to communicate much more than just the launch or availability of a new test.

Wider implications?

In some cases, the launch of a new test could actually make things worse in a breed. The paper notes the evidence of selection – breeders intentionally avoiding producing affected puppies. In some breeds we have seen unhelpful selection strategies such as Affecteds or Carriers being removed from the breeding population completely, when they could quite safely be mated to Clear dogs. Another unhelpful approach is when people rush to use the small number of Clear stud dogs available and we may end up with the so-called Popular Sire Syndrome and all the adverse consequences that go with that. So, while DNA tests do indeed have the potential to prevent the breeding of more affected puppies, breeders must consider the bigger picture of genetic diversity. Reducing the gene pool makes it even more likely that hitherto unseen recessive mutations will “pop up” as undesirable health problems.

There are over 700 inherited disorders and traits in dogs, of which around 300 have a genetically simple mode of inheritance and around 150 available DNA tests. This tells us that we should not rely on DNA testing to solve the “problem” of diseases in pedigree dogs.

This new paper therefore gives the KC and breed clubs an opportunity to educate (or re-educate) owners and breeders on how DNA tests can be used within an overall breed health strategy. As well as celebrating the fantastic work done by so many committed breed enthusiasts, the messaging needs to be wider than “DNA testing improves dog health”.

I also wonder to what extent this paper might cause the KC to review its policies on the registration system, particularly given that there have long been calls for responsible breeders to be recognised for their commitment. It’s no good saying that’s what the ABS is for when so many good breeders have chosen not to join. Last year, Our Dogs wrote “A Manifesto for Change”, directed at the KC Board. Among other things, it said there was a need to address (or justify clearly) long-standing issues related to the registration system such as the ABS, DNA identification and the requirements for health testing. I hope the Lewis & Mellersh paper provides part of the evidence-base for those discussions.

It seems a long time ago, but in 2014 the KC ran its pedigree dogs breed health survey with an online survey that attracted just under 50,000 responses. Among these were 5663 reports of dogs that had died. Now, that set of mortality data has been analysed and published in an Open Access paper: “Longevity and mortality in Kennel Club registered dog breeds in the UK in 2014”. The co-authors are Tom Lewis, Bonnie Wiles, Aimee Llewellyn-Zaidi, Katy Evans and Dan O’Neill; names that will be familiar to many readers.

There are some interesting findings in the paper and I’d like to share a few of those, this month.

The most commonly reported causes of death were old age (13.8%), unspecified cancer (8.7%) and heart failure (4.9%); with 5.1% of deaths reported as unknown cause. Overall median age at death was 10.33 years. Breeds varied widely in median longevity overall from the West Highland Terrier (12.71 years) to the Dobermann Pinscher (7.67 years). There was also wide variation in the prevalence of some common causes of death among breeds, and in median longevity across the causes of death.

What do dogs die of?

All dogs are going to die of something (!) so it’s perhaps good news to find that owners reported “old age” as the most common cause of death. Interestingly, “old age” as reported by the owners ranged from just under 6 years old to just over 22 years old. The median age of death under the “old age”category was 13.7 years.

At the recent Breed Health Coordinator Symposium, Dr Mike Starkey told us that 1 in 4 dogs will be affected by cancer so it’s probably not surprising to see Cancer (of unspecified types) as the second highest cause of death. The median age of cancer deaths was just over 10 years, again suggesting it is as most people would expect, a condition of older age. The range for age of death due to cancers was very wide: 2 months to 21 years.

What do different breeds die of?

It’s well-known that canine longevity varies considerably depending on the size of the breed; giant breeds have shorter lifespans while smaller breeds tend to live longer. Of particular interest to me was a previous VetCompass study that showed Miniature Dachshunds to be among the longest-lived breeds. This breed was subsequently chosen to be a long-lived representative in a genome-wide association study that Cathryn Mellersh (AHT) and other colleagues conducted to compare the genomes of long and short-lived breeds.

The latest paper shows data for “Within Breed Proportional Mortality” (WBPM). This is a way to look at the relative differences between the various causes of death for each breed where there were sufficient reports. (Unfortunately, from my personal point of view there were too few Dachshund reports to be included in this analysis).

This is where the paper gets really interesting. The data shows, for example that the WBPM for “old age” ranged from 3.85% in Bernese Mountain Dogs to 25.0% in Bearded Collies. In other words, significantly fewer BMDs die of old age than Bearded Collies. The WBPM for ‘cancer – unspecified’ ranged from 0.00% in Gordon Setters to 19.56% in Flat Coated Retrievers. The WBPM for ‘heart failure’ ranged from 0.00% in Whippets to 19.82% in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Again, these reflect what most people know about cancer risk in FCRs and heart disease in Cavaliers. The analysis also shows that Border Terriers had the highest WBPM for dying as a result of road traffic accidents.

This WBPM data enabled the authors to identify how individual breeds’ causes of death compared with the Overall Proportional Mortality (OPM) based on reports for all the dogs in the survey. Boxers and FCRs were the 2 breeds less likely to die of old age compared with the OPM. Cavaliers were less likely to die of cancers, compared with the OPM, but, as you would expect, were more likely to die of heart conditions. If your breed is among the 25 analysed in this way, it’s well worth looking at the data to see how it compares with your own experience.

Healthspan vs. Lifespan

Healthspan is an interesting concept that has become quite topical. A dog’s healthspan is the length of time it is healthy, not just alive. The paper says “Although death may be postponed by improved healthcare, extended longevity by itself does not necessarily imply an improved or even a good quality of life, so a delicate balancing act exists between longevity and acceptable quality of life.” This leads to challenging ethical debates about whether a shorter but healthy lifespan with a short, rapid decline to death, might be preferable to a longer life with long periods of illness and a slow decline to death. There is, inevitably, a difficult decision to be made by owners, with vets, about treatment options to prolong life, quality of life and when might be the right time to consider euthanasia.

The concept of healthspan means that longevity almost certainly means different things in different breeds. A giant breed would, typically, be expected to die younger than a toy breed but as long as the dog was healthy during that lifespan, most people would not consider there to be welfare issues. Conversely, long-lived breeds should not necessarily be considered as being “healthier”, particularly if much of their lifespan is subject to a debilitating illness.

4 categories of breed

The authors merged the results of longevity by breed with Within Breed Proportional Mortality (WBPM) and came up with 4 categories of breed:

Long-lived with no specific cause of death at a raised proportional mortality (e.g. WHW Terrier, Bearded Collie, Gordon Setter)

Long-lived with at least one cause of death at a raised proportional mortality (e.g. Labrador, Golden Retriever, Border Collie)

Short-lived with no specific cause of death at a raised proportional mortality (e.g. GSD, Whippet)

Short-lived with at least one cause of death at a raised proportional mortality (e.g. Flat Coated Retriever, Dobermann)Category 4 breeds are short-lived with serious, breed-specific, life-limiting conditions. Categories 1 and 3 are breeds where there is a wide variation in longevity associated with factors that apply across all dogs (such as size) and there is no obvious disease that accounts for death.

The paper concludes: “This study has identified individual breeds that have both a low median lifespan and also a high proportional mortality for one or more specific causes of death. Breeds with this combination are highlighted with potential welfare concerns that may need to be addressed.”

If your breed is one of the 25 breeds with causes of death with more than 50 reports, the paper is well worth reading and reflecting on what actions your breed clubs might need to be taking.

The annual KC Breed Health Coordinators’ Symposium held at Stoneleigh on 19th September was attended by about 130 people. For the second year, it was open to people who are not BHCs, so it was good to see some “friends of BHCs”, other health team reps and folks with a genuine interest in breed health improvement, taking the opportunity to attend.

Last year, the KC’s health team launched a BHC Mentoring Scheme and six of us volunteered to act as mentors. The Mentors were allocated a 30-minute slot at the end of the morning session for a Q&A with the attendees. We took some pre-prepared questions in case the audience was too shy to ask anything but we should have known that BHCs are generally a talkative and inquisitive group. So, despite us being the only barrier between them and their lunch, we fielded plenty of good questions and still managed to finish on time.

Interestingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of questions were about “people issues”, rather than technical topics such as running surveys or developing screening programmes. We were asked questions about dealing with confidentiality, how to use anecdotal evidence of problems and how to get people to participate.

Offline, I was asked if I could say something about how to create a culture of openness, trust and collaboration. It’s a question I’ve been asked previously when I have spoken at workshops about the work we have done in the Dachshund breed. Unfortunately, we ran out of time in the Q&A but it gives me a good topic for this month’s column!

Avoid fanfares and pronouncements!

First of all, you don’t start off by saying either that you want to, or you are going to, create a culture of openness, trust and collaboration. That might seem counterintuitive but it’s deeds, not words, that count. You have to do things that are consistent with and that help to build the culture you want.

As an example, the first breed health survey we did was very informal, asked a few questions about known issues and didn’t ask for the dog’s or the owner’s names. It gave us valuable baseline data but, more importantly, it clearly signalled that we valued people’s input and there would be no witch-hunt. Our follow-on survey collected 500 responses, mostly from the show community and most of whom happily gave their name and their dog’s name. We built openness and trust by publishing our analysis quickly without breaching any confidentiality.

It’s also important to realise that having a team-based approach to health improvement is far more likely to succeed than having one or two people dictating what needs to be done and presenting fait accompli solutions to breed clubs and their members. If you want widespread collaboration, those people leading your health initiatives have to work collaboratively. Again, it’s leading by example. Our Health Committee members share responsibilities for work and we willingly allow individual breed clubs to take the lead on issues that are important to them. So, the Miniature Dachshund Club takes the lead on eye conditions, opening up a wider pool of potential helpers and routes to engage owners in screening programmes. Similarly, the Wirehaired Dachshund Club takes the lead on Lafora Screening. In 2010, this was led by their Chairman and a committee who felt passionate about doing the right thing for the dogs. 9 years later, there is new leadership at the club but constancy of purpose has meant that “unsafe” breeding has been reduced from 55% of litters to around 5%.

It’s always about the purpose

I recently attended the retirement celebration for the Director of a Charity I’ve worked with for many years. Her chair of trustees introduced her as “the amazing Tina”, which she is, because of what she has enabled the organisation to achieve under her leadership. Significantly and spontaneously, her first words to us in the audience were: “It’s never about the person, it’s always about the purpose”.

That’s exactly what I’d expect every one of our Health Committee to say and so would our many other volunteers and helpers. None of them do it for personal glory or advancement. Their behaviour also sets the tone for other people to get involved and work collaboratively. We have dozens of fundraisers who believe in the purpose.

As an aside, Martin Luther King managed to get a quarter of a million people to turn up in Washington to hear him speak in 1963. He didn’t have the benefit of social media to promote the event. In his speech, he said “I have a dream” and had been using that phrase previously. People turned up to hear about his dream. He didn’t say “I have a plan” and he certainly didn’t say “this is how I’m going to implement it”. How many people would have gone to hear that?

Rewards and punishments don’t work

In pretty much all of our health improvement work, we have ignored the people who don’t want to participate. We haven’t used threats to force them to get on board or unleashed witch-hunts to make them look bad. We have put more effort into making it easy for those who want to participate to do so. That has included using our health fund to subsidise screening programmes and even to offer free “research” screening sessions where we need to gather data about new or emerging conditions.

We don’t really use rewards either. People get certificates with screening results but, more importantly, they get the satisfaction that they have done the right thing for their breed. We make sure our regular communications shout about these good news stories to encourage others to participate.

Regular communication using a wide variety of channels is critical. Social media is an essential tool – the clue is in the title: it’s “social” and a great way to engage, educate and collaborate with breeders, potential owners and current owners. It’s timely, too. Use it to communicate why you are doing things, what you’re doing, what’s been achieved and how people can help. Our Pet Advisors spend huge amounts of time sharing data and evidence in Facebook Groups to counter the anecdotal nonsense that can get published.

How long will it take?

That depends! If you’re doing the right things, consistently, and your deeds match your words, I am convinced you can begin to make a difference within 18 months. That depends on having a team of like-minded leaders. One or two people can’t railroad change through on their own.

You won’t get it all right the first time. Try hard, fail fast. You’ll make mistakes and annoy some people. Sometimes you’ll get a completely unexpected negative reaction. Apologise and move on. There is no place for politics and grudges in breed health improvement. Work with the people who want to be worked with.

Author Libba Ray said “And that is how change happens. One gesture. One person. One moment at a time”.

I expect most readers will be aware of the Kennel Club’s programme to develop Breed Health and Conservation Plans. This was launched in 2016 to ensure that, for every breed, all health concerns are identified through evidence-based criteria, and that breeders are provided with useful information and resources to support them in making balanced breeding decisions that make health a priority.

The first group of breeds included those in Breed Watch Category 3 (previously known as “high-profile breeds”, plus GSDs, Cavaliers and English Setters). We’ve heard relatively little about their BHCPs from the clubs and councils associated with them, so it’s difficult to know if and how they are working.

My breed, Dachshunds, is included in the second batch of breeds and I thought it might be useful to share our experience of the process and how we intend to make use of our BHCP.

Stage 1: Evidence gathering

Dr Katy Evans is the KC’s lead person on this project and her first task for each breed is to identify and review the published evidence of the state of the breed. The key inputs to this are:

This is a massive exercise to search for, collate and distil the evidence into a first draft paper for the breed to consider. Breed clubs owe a great debt of gratitude to Katy and her colleagues because, for the first time, we have all the available evidence relating to our breed in one place.

It is a “single source of the truth” for each breed. That doesn’t mean, however, that the summary report will give your breed the definitive prevalence for any particular health condition. You need to see the evidence base as the big picture which helps you to triangulate in on points of concern.

Stage 2: Prioritise

Findings from stage 1 are used collaboratively to provide clear indications of the most significant health conditions in each breed, in terms of prevalence and impact. This is the point where breed clubs and councils need to engage with the BHCP process. From a breed’s perspective, their Breed Health Coordinator (BHC) is the key point of contact between the breed and the KC. Every breed has to appoint a BHC and, often, there will also be a Health Committee. Both the BHC role and Health Committee are appointed to serve your breed and, in the case of Dachshunds, ours are accountable to our Breed Council. They act on our behalf, are accountable to the Council and are expected to put the interest of the dogs as their first priority (not politics).

We were invited to meet the KC team in July and 6 of our 10 Health Committee members were able to attend. This might sound, to some, like a lot of people to attend this meeting but I firmly believe that the breadth of experience among our delegates was invaluable for 2 reasons. Firstly, the discussions we had and the decisions we made were based on a wide range of knowledge across our 6 Dachshund varieties. No one person can know everything about the breed nor remember the history of how we got to where we are today. Secondly, the decisions made have to be a consensus because we, the Health Committee, have to justify the BHCP to everyone else in the breed. The quality of decision-making by our team far outweighs anything that any one of us could achieve, on our own.

Stage 3: Action planning

The process we followed at the meeting enabled us to arrive at a consensus and to agree priorities for action. Katy Evans led the discussions and took us through all the content she had collated. Although this might sound like a rather linear and dry approach, the discussions it generated were not “down in the weeds”. We had all had copies of the evidence to review prior to the meeting which meant we were able to make connections between the different areas as we worked through them in the meeting.

So, for example, a single paper on Colour Dilution Alopecia (CDA) led to a wide-ranging discussion covering Colour Not Recognised registrations (CDA occurs in Blue Dachshunds), the massive increase in popularity of Mini Smooth Dachshunds and the need for better data on skin conditions, in general. There were no surprises for us here but we have agreed actions on data collection in our forthcoming breed survey, actions for the KC to look at our list of registration colours, and actions for all of us to educate the Dachshund-buying public on the breed to try to shift demand away from Mini Smooths towards other varieties.

I think the fact that, as a breed, we have been very proactive in gathering data and working on improvements gave us a head start when developing actions for our BHCP. Nevertheless, we have been able to identify further work that will accelerate the rate of progress in current focus areas as well as initiate new actions in other areas. Some of those actions include:

Adding a recommendation to the ABS for IVDD Screening

Refining the content of our forthcoming Cancer and Health Survey to capture data on conditions identified in the BHCP

All of these will need to be publicised through appropriate channels to reach breeders, owners and judges.

Tips for other breeds

If your breed has not yet been through the BHCP process, I’d recommend the following, based on our learning:

Take a team of experienced breeders/owners to the planning meeting; they don’t need to be on your Health Committee but they do need to be advocates for improving your breed

Do your homework prior to the meeting by reading and reflecting on the evidence base presented by the KC; go with an open mind

Keep the big picture in mind; obsessing about single health conditions and DNA testing is not a recipe for long-term improvement when a lack of genetic diversity is probably the major challenge facing most pedigree dog breeds

Have a plan for communicating your actions; the BHCP document itself may not be the best format for sharing information widely to different audiences

I’ll end with a quote from Peter Drucker (Management Guru) – “Eventually, plans must degenerate into hard work”.

The authors investigated approaches being adopted by Kennel Clubs internationally and what they see as high priority issues. They issued a questionnaire to 40 KCs and received responses from 15, 11 in Europe and 4 elsewhere (Australia, Mexico, Uruguay, and the USA). The European responses were from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Also among the authors were Sofia Malm and Gregoire Leroy who I met at the IPFD’s 3rd International Dog Health Workshop last year. They were facilitating the workstream on Breeding Strategies and Gregoire blogs regularly on the IPFD website (dogwellnet.com).

We know in the UK that our KC believes it registers around 35% of pedigree dogs which leaves a large number of breeders and dogs that fall outside its direct influence. I suspect that, historically, the KC and most breed clubs have taken the view that they can only influence dog owners among the registered population. Given the high percentage of unregistered dogs, the question therefore arises: who is looking after their interests? Certainly, in the Dachshunds, with our Pet Advisors among our Health Committee and Breed Clubs who are proactive on Dachshund Facebook Groups, we have taken the view that we need to help ALL Dachshund owners and potential owners. The dogs don’t know or care whether they are KC registered and if we can provide advice to all owners, that has to be a good thing.

The survey results from the 15 countries showed a range from less than 1% to 78% of dogs registered by their KC. The Nordic countries, in general, had a higher proportion of their pedigree dogs registered by their KCs but it’s worth remembering that the total dog population sizes in these countries are relatively small compared with say the UK and USA. The lowest proportions registered were in India, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Hong Kong. The highest were in Finland, Sweden, Iceland and New Zealand. Our KC reported a figure of 35%.

One size does not fit all

When I wrote about the discussions at last year’s IDHW, I specifically commented on the international and cultural aspects that can significantly influence the choice of approach that will work for a Breed Health Strategy and the likely compliance from breeders and owners. This latest paper reinforces those comments. It is clear that what might work in the Nordic countries with smaller pedigree dog populations and a high compliance among breeders, is almost certainly not going to work in the UK, USA or Australia. That’s not to say we can’t learn from each other but a simple “cut and paste” solution that assumes “one size fits all” is doomed to fail. Each Kennel Club and each Breed Club needs to understand not only their specific challenges and priorities but also the context within which they are operating.

The paper goes on to discuss the different issues each of the KCs prioritised. It should be no surprise that exaggerated morphological features and inherited disorders ranked as the most important issues. It has been obvious for at least the past decade that these issues are significant and are not going to go away. The evidence that some breeds need serious action is overwhelming and anyone still calling for more data is, in my view, simply in denial. In the UK, we have seen the formation of the Brachycephalic Working Group whose report and action plan was published last year. To me, this seems like a model for collaboration and practical steps that the diverse range of interested parties (stakeholders!) can sign up to.Our KC ranked issues in the following order (most important, first): exaggerated morphological features, inbreeding and genetic variability, inherited disorders, puppy farming, legislative constraints to breeding, dog behaviour and economic constraints to breeding.

Health and breeding recommendations

Individual Kennel Clubs’ responses to these issues are also discussed and we can see how widely adopted different approaches are and the proportion of breeds these cover. “Health recommendations prior to breeding were provided for more than half of the breeds in 11 countries, health status for breeding was required in 10 countries, and the maximum numbers of litters or/and puppies produced by a single dog were restricted in seven countries. Three countries indicated they do not have any specific restrictions on choosing mating partners, while another three countries reported that specific restrictions on choosing mating partners were implemented for all breeds.” Only 1 of the responding KCs said they have no health recommendations in place prior to breeding. It’s not possible to tell from the paper or its supplementary data which countries place restrictions on choosing mating partners or the limits on puppies produced by a single dog (so-called Popular Sires). Similarly, we don’t know how compliant breeders are where these rules exist or their impact on dog health or genetic diversity.

Austria, Sweden and The Netherlands have breeding strategies covering all of their breeds. Five countries reported that they provide Coefficient of Inbreeding information online for 100% of their breeds (presumably that includes our KC via MateSelect). Three countries provide online advice mating tools for all of their breeds. The paper says that our KC provides EBV data on Hip and Elbow Dysplasia for 28 breeds (Sweden does this for 42 breeds). What’s interesting here is that there is a wealth of expertise available around the world and there should be many lessons learnt that can be applied to help KCs catch up, where they need to. I’m sure some of those lessons learnt would relate to the design and implementation of software solutions, as we often read about how easy or difficult it can be to navigate and find health or pedigree information in different countries. Applying those lessons learnt won’t necessarily be easy, particularly when KCs have legacy IT systems that really weren’t designed to meet the needs of today’s breeders or to cope with the newly emerging data and breeding tools.

Learning from each other

One of the other analyses was the pairing of countries with similar question response profiles. Our KC was most similar to the Danish KC and, perhaps surprisingly, France and the USA were paired. Uruguay/Mexico were also paired, as were Austria/Germany. There is potential for cooperation between these pairs of countries because of their similar responses. However, they might actually find equally useful insights by looking at countries with whom they have little similarity. Apparently, the French KC has already benefited from learning about our Mate Select system to develop their online database.

My main takeaways from this paper are (a) that the issues facing Kennel Clubs and breeders of pedigree dogs around the world have a lot in common and (b) that, by taking an international perspective, there is huge potential for more joined-up solutions to be developed. Solutions will necessarily cover access to and sharing of information on pedigrees, health conditions and test/screening programmes. In terms of creating real change and breed health improvement, I think the key will be the development of Breed-specific Improvement Strategies (Breed Health & Conservation Plans in the UK). Sharing these documents internationally could prove to be a critical success factor in accelerating the rate of improvement in dog health, particularly if we are able to learn what works and what doesn’t in different countries and cultures. Readers will not be surprised, therefore, to see me conclude that I believe the International Partnership for Dogs has a major role to play over the next decade.

At the end of January, nominations closed for the Breed Health Coordinator of the Year Award which is worth £1000 to the winner. This year, the award is part of the International Canine Health Awards which are sponsored by Shirley and Vernon Hill, founders of Metro Bank. According to the KC’s website, “judges will be looking for individuals from breed clubs or councils who have demonstrated a dedication to supporting health and welfare within their breed over the previous year. Some of the aspects that will be considered include the starting or coordinating of a new project or resource for the breed, such as a health website or health survey, and good communication with the Kennel Club”.

What does it take to be a Breed Health Coordinator? Depending on your perspective and (maybe) the day of the week, these folk are either the unsung heroes of breed health improvement or they are mugs with a thankless task!

Breed Clubs were first officially written to by the KC in 1999 which is when the first BHCs took office. There were several BHCs or Breed Health Committees before that, just not officially recognised by the KC. One of the BHCs recalled it wasn’t until around 2008/2009 (after PDE) that the KC asked for just one official BHC to represent each breed.

It became obvious that Breed Clubs not only had to work together, but they also had to at least acknowledge health!

Toolkits and resources

Over the past few years, the KC has published a number of toolkits to support the work of BHCs. These cover topics as broad-ranging as how to develop a Breed Health Strategy, to more specific advice on designing Health Surveys and setting up websites. And, of course, there is the annual BHC Symposium which I have written about several times.

Nevertheless, it must be incredibly daunting to be appointed as a new BHC and, apparently, have the weight of expectation of your whole breed on your shoulders. This must be particularly true for BHCs in any of the Brachycephalic breeds which are certainly under the spotlight at the moment. BHCs for any of the Breed Watch Category 3 breeds (formerly “high profile breeds”) are similarly under closer scrutiny than other breeds. Thankfully, there are some very experienced BHCs among the Brachycephalic community and many readers will have seen or heard Vicky Collins-Nattrass (Bulldogs) or Penny Rankine-Parsons (French Bulldogs) on national TV and radio. These folk get plenty of support from the KC’s Health Team and the Communications/Press Team.

So, what is it that we expect a newly appointed BHC to know and do? The role is described in a Job Description and that’s OK as far as it goes. But, if you’ve been thrown in at the deep end, sometimes it’s hard to know where to start. Having had conversations with plenty of BHCs over the years, I think there are a few “basics” that I’d expect a newly appointed BHC to be considering.

Data at your fingertips

It’s highly likely that every BHC will be very knowledgeable about their breed. Specifically, they need to have at their fingertips some essential data.

What are the trends in registration data over the past 3-5 years for their breed? This tells you something about supply and demand and provides useful context for any health improvement actions.

The KC has run 2 major health surveys; in 2004 and 2014. Even in numerically small breeds, or breeds where the responses to these surveys might have been rather low, the data will provide useful evidence of health issues (if any exist). For breeds with good response rates, there will also be useful mortality data. It is essential to know how long a breed can be expected to live and the typical causes of death. Many of these surveys show few surprises, with common causes of death being simply age-related.

Building on the data available from the KC, some breeds will also have done their own surveys and there might be evidence of emerging conditions of concern. In the absence of data, a new BHC is going to have to put plans in place to move from “no data” or “anecdotal data” to something more robust. That’s when the Health Surveys Toolkit and support from the KC’s Health Team kick in.

There’s another great source of information that BHCs can tap into and that’s the research work being done in the UK and around the world. Dr Zoe Belshaw spoke at last year’s BHC Symposium about how to search for published research and how to assess the quality and usefulness of those papers. BHCs soon identify subject matter experts to whom they can refer for scientific and veterinary advice. In some cases, they might need to commission new research in their breed; others may just need help to understand the implications of the available published research.

Experience to draw on

One of the features of some of the more proactive breeds is the development of Health Schemes. Typically, based on Gold, Silver and Bronze levels these schemes enable BHCs to collect data on their breed on a routine basis. They provide a continuous opportunity to publicise what breeders and owners are achieving with the health and welfare of their dogs. Clearly, it’s not an insignificant exercise to set up and run a new Health Scheme but, again, there is lots of experience in the BHC community to learn from. Perhaps the biggest challenge for a BHC taking on a Health Scheme is how to recruit participants and to keep this going year after year.

With the current development of the KC’s Breed Health and Conservation Plans, there is a proven way for BHCs to develop a good understanding of their breed’s priorities and to structure their plans for improvement. The document itself might be a rather complex document for the ordinary breeder or owner to read, so there’s an important role for BHCs to translate it into bite-sized chunks and to present it in engaging ways. The use of infographics is just one way in which BHCs can do this.

In 1624, John Donne said “No man is an island” and, while he certainly wasn’t thinking about BHCs, for many breeds these key people aren’t working alone. They often have health committee colleagues and a broader resource network to turn to. We also have a BHC Facebook Group which is a great source of advice and support, and last year, the BHC Mentoring Scheme was launched.

So, for those BHCs who are feeling under pressure and thinking “I’m a BHC, get me out of here”, I’d encourage you not to worry about trying to change the world, but to think about the long game and take inspiration from what we’ve all managed to achieve over the past 2 decades.

[For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not a Breed Health Coordinator, but I am a member of the Dachshund Breed Council’s Health Committee]

At the October 2017 Kennel Club Breed Health Coordinator Symposium, Dr. Katy Evans gave an update on the progress being made to create Breed Health and Conservation Plans. Katy is Health Research Manager in the KC’s Health Team and has been leading this project which is working on plans for 17 breeds initially. Many of these are nearing completion and there will be a further 30 breeds involved in the second phase.

The KC says the purpose of these BHCPs is “to ensure that all health concerns are identified through evidence-based criteria, and that breeders are provided with useful information and resources to support them in making balanced breeding decisions that make health a priority.”

We shouldn’t underestimate the huge amount of work that is required to create these BHCPs, so it is critical that they are developed in collaboration with Breed Health Coordinators and Breed Club communities. Their input is important but their buy-in and commitment to the actions proposed is essential.

Development of working BHCPs is a four stage process:

Identify concerns

Prioritise

Implement actions

Monitor and review

Show me the numbers

In order to identify concerns about each breed, the first stage draws on a wide range of available data and evidence. Information sources include published scientific papers, the 2004 and 2014 KC Health Surveys, registration and population data (including the genetic diversity analyses published in 2015), BreedWatch reports submitted by show judges and Annual Health Reports submitted by each breed. The evidence-base is further enhanced by results from the VetCompass project, insurance data from Agria in Sweden and the UK and screening data from official KC/BVA schemes (e.g. hips, elbows and eyes). Many breed clubs have conducted their own health surveys and have commissioned research projects into particular health conditions, so these can also form part of the evidence-base. Where DNA tests are available, further data can be obtained on trends in Clear, Carrier and Affected mutation test results.

The result of all this desk research should be an incontrovertible picture of what’s going on in each breed. For some breeds, this might be the first time they have seen the wealth of evidence presented in one place. It will also be an amazing resource for Breed Health Coordinators to use. When they are challenged by breeders who say “we don’t have a problem”, they will be able to confirm or disprove this. Similarly, when their breed is criticised by campaigners or the media, they will have the evidence at their fingertips to respond with confidence.

First things first

The prioritisation stage of the process should be relatively straightforward given the weight of evidence that will be available. The two main factors that need to be considered are prevalence and impact.

I know from our experience in collecting data on Dachshund health conditions that it will be virtually impossible to agree a single prevalence figure. Different survey methods, sample sizes and sample demographics potentially result in different figures for prevalence. That’s not necessarily a problem as long as you understand how the result was arrived at (and that’s an area of expertise that Katy certainly brings to this project).

It’s likely to be more difficult to arrive at a quantifiable estimate of impact because this involves a number of criteria including age of onset and length of time a dog may suffer, how easy the condition is to treat and whether it recurs, the degree of pain and suffering caused, whether any treatment is available and what it involves (including cost). In 2009, Asher et al proposed a Generic Illness Severity Index for Dogs [GISID]. The scale was based on similar severity indices from human medicine and comprises four dimensions, each of which is scored on a five-point scale:

Prognosis – to reflect whether the disease is chronic or acute

Treatment – to include factors related to the medical, surgical and side-effects of treatment

Complications – to show the potential for other impacts associated with treatment

Behaviour – to show the effect on the dog’s quality of life

By scoring a disease against each of the four scales, the severity of different conditions can be compared, albeit with a degree of subjectivity. A condition such as Gastric Torsion (Bloat) would score near the maximum severity on the GISID scale, whereas Deafness would score much lower. We have used this as a way of focusing attention on particular conditions in our Dachshund Health Plans.

Prioritisation will be done in collaboration with Breed Health Coordinators and breed clubs. I expect there will also need to be some involvement of researchers and veterinary experts. I would also expect that temperament and behavioural issues might need to be included in some breeds.

Plans are nothing, planning is everything

We all know there are no quick fixes for improving breed health but I can’t believe there’s a single breed that has nothing to do or that can do nothing. In some cases, the immediate actions will be to commission more research or to collect more data. Given the wealth of information I expect will be collated from stage 1, “more research” and “more data” should not be used as delaying tactics to kick meaningful action into the long grass. This is particularly relevant for the first 17 breeds which include BreedWatch Category 3 breeds with visible health conditions.

The actions we need to see emerging from BHCPs must be designed to cause behavioural change. They will probably need to be supply side and demand side changes. Breeders will almost certainly need to change their behaviour, for example in their decisions about health testing and in choosing which dogs to mate. Judges may need to change their behaviour, as may vets. Buyer behaviour will almost inevitably have to change as well, as will that of influencers such as advertisers.

A model for this “whole systems” approach to planning for breed improvement is already emerging in the Brachycephalic breeds. The KC’s Working Group is a multi-stakeholder group looking at practical actions that can be taken on both supply and demand.

Readers of my previous articles will realise I’m about to get on my Change Management Hobby Horse!

The plans in each BHCP must address 5 key enablers of change:

Pressure for change – why change is needed

Vision for improvement – what success looks like

Capacity for change – time and resources to make it happen

Practical first steps – what will be done in the next 3, 6, 9, 12 months, to build some momentum

Recognition and reinforcement – how positive changes will be celebrated and how “resistance” will be addressed

What this boils down to is creating specific plans for communication, education, training and recognition with target groups and individuals (stakeholders!). There may also need to be plans to change rules, regulations, legislation, standards and processes.

BHCP Stage 4 (Monitor) is easy! Check that the actions are being implemented and having the desired effect. If they aren’t, do something different.

I will end with a quote from management guru Peter Drucker: “Eventually, plans must degenerate into hard work”.